1. The 11th Hour: Directed by Leila Conners Petersen and Nadia Conners, Released 2007
2. The 11th Hour is a relatively all inclusive environmental film that hits on a lot of major points concluding that humanity is in a pivotal moment right now, and that our global decisions may decide the fate of the human race. The primary focus is on global warming but the film includes commentary on fossil fuel dependence, consumerism, and others, which of course, all contribute to global warming in one way or another. The arguments are broken down further below.
3. In the political realm, this film points out the interweavings of government and business and how businesses wield too much power in government, because of this it is difficult to get sustainable practices written into law because they are often perceived as less profitable for the big companies. Economically, our society has built itself around the economy, which is itself built upon the idea of infinite growth. We live on a finite planet, so it is not possible to grow forever. Technologically, we are dependent on fossil fuels to power and produce our daily lives. We need to develop sustainable energy. Along with that, we need a cultural change away from unnecessary consumption which is wasteful and harmful to the environment. We need to switch behavior from throwing everything away to repairing things and only purchasing what we need. As mentioned, our practices of producing, enabled by our practices of consuming are extremely harmful to the environment and we are slowly poisoning the planet and ourselves.
4. The most persuasive part of the film was probably the argument about global warming becoming self sustaining. As the oceans heat up, they give off CO2 that can no longer remain dissolved, leading to more heating. As the ice caps melt, there is less white surface reflecting heat, leading to still more warming. All in all however, the film was not that convincing (see below).
5. The movie as a whole was not very convincing or compelling. Having Leonardo Dicaprio as the narrator did nothing for the film. It made it seem like fake Hollywood fluff. Furthermore, the movie was full of so-called “talking head.” It can be useful to have experts in a field discuss their findings or their perception of problems. However, they need to be qualified, not in that all the PhD’s on camera were not qualified professionally, but that they were not introduced in any way so as to give me reason to believe they had any idea what they were talking about. If all you do is say here’s Bob the PhD to talk about global warming, then I have no idea if Bob knows anything more than I do about the topic. Maybe his PhD is in English, and therefore has no relevance here. And even if Bob’s PhD is in climatology, that does not mean he necessarily has experience with global warming. The talking heads were not qualified by the narrator or in text. They never said, “Here’s Bob PhD, President of the climate change panel at BOB University” to qualify Bob as an expert in climate change, or whatever they had Bob talking about at the time.
6. The “Hollywoodish” nature of this movie did not really compel me to seek out anything it discussed any further. It really did such a poor job giving its message across that I had not interest in pursuing anything further. Base on previous knowledge however, things that the film touches on that I would like to know more about include the self-sustaining nature of global warming. Just how strong could the positive feedback be, and is there a point from which there is no return? Also, the movie made mention that we are “disconnected from our knowledge” but did not elaborate much, if at all and I would like to know more about what they meant by this. I suspect it had to do with people learning so much via the internet and getting very little hands on experience with things.
7. This film best addresses the general public. Unfortunately this is the case because the film fosters more of an emotional response than critical thinking. The way the film was made with beautiful background music and “compelling images” with supposed experts talking about how our way of life is destroying the planet was more akin to a fire and brimstone sermon than an academic discussion. That said, it is entirely possible that such a film might move the general public to try and be more environmental. I do not think it will really change the way people view problems of sustainability in any particularly meaningful way so much as make them more aware of the magnitude of the problem and perhaps make them more active in pursuing solutions.
8. Towards the end of the film it begins to discuss options for combating the problems. It makes all the usual suggestions of reducing energy usage, using more efficient appliances and the like, driving less, generally consuming less, and creating a united public will. There was nothing particularly new or interesting, but then this film was more meant to get people riled up on the issue than actually do much about it, or so it seemed.
9. This film would have to be largely redone to make it educationally useful. As it stands it has little academic value due to a lack of depth of arguments and the subsequent supporting evidence. To make it educationally viable, this would have to be addressed as well as the problems discussed above.
The 11th Hour
An annotation by Evan Beauvilliers1. The 11th Hour: Directed by Leila Conners Petersen and Nadia Conners, Released 2007
2. The 11th Hour is a relatively all inclusive environmental film that hits on a lot of major points concluding that humanity is in a pivotal moment right now, and that our global decisions may decide the fate of the human race. The primary focus is on global warming but the film includes commentary on fossil fuel dependence, consumerism, and others, which of course, all contribute to global warming in one way or another. The arguments are broken down further below.
3. In the political realm, this film points out the interweavings of government and business and how businesses wield too much power in government, because of this it is difficult to get sustainable practices written into law because they are often perceived as less profitable for the big companies. Economically, our society has built itself around the economy, which is itself built upon the idea of infinite growth. We live on a finite planet, so it is not possible to grow forever. Technologically, we are dependent on fossil fuels to power and produce our daily lives. We need to develop sustainable energy. Along with that, we need a cultural change away from unnecessary consumption which is wasteful and harmful to the environment. We need to switch behavior from throwing everything away to repairing things and only purchasing what we need. As mentioned, our practices of producing, enabled by our practices of consuming are extremely harmful to the environment and we are slowly poisoning the planet and ourselves.
4. The most persuasive part of the film was probably the argument about global warming becoming self sustaining. As the oceans heat up, they give off CO2 that can no longer remain dissolved, leading to more heating. As the ice caps melt, there is less white surface reflecting heat, leading to still more warming. All in all however, the film was not that convincing (see below).
5. The movie as a whole was not very convincing or compelling. Having Leonardo Dicaprio as the narrator did nothing for the film. It made it seem like fake Hollywood fluff. Furthermore, the movie was full of so-called “talking head.” It can be useful to have experts in a field discuss their findings or their perception of problems. However, they need to be qualified, not in that all the PhD’s on camera were not qualified professionally, but that they were not introduced in any way so as to give me reason to believe they had any idea what they were talking about. If all you do is say here’s Bob the PhD to talk about global warming, then I have no idea if Bob knows anything more than I do about the topic. Maybe his PhD is in English, and therefore has no relevance here. And even if Bob’s PhD is in climatology, that does not mean he necessarily has experience with global warming. The talking heads were not qualified by the narrator or in text. They never said, “Here’s Bob PhD, President of the climate change panel at BOB University” to qualify Bob as an expert in climate change, or whatever they had Bob talking about at the time.
6. The “Hollywoodish” nature of this movie did not really compel me to seek out anything it discussed any further. It really did such a poor job giving its message across that I had not interest in pursuing anything further. Base on previous knowledge however, things that the film touches on that I would like to know more about include the self-sustaining nature of global warming. Just how strong could the positive feedback be, and is there a point from which there is no return? Also, the movie made mention that we are “disconnected from our knowledge” but did not elaborate much, if at all and I would like to know more about what they meant by this. I suspect it had to do with people learning so much via the internet and getting very little hands on experience with things.
7. This film best addresses the general public. Unfortunately this is the case because the film fosters more of an emotional response than critical thinking. The way the film was made with beautiful background music and “compelling images” with supposed experts talking about how our way of life is destroying the planet was more akin to a fire and brimstone sermon than an academic discussion. That said, it is entirely possible that such a film might move the general public to try and be more environmental. I do not think it will really change the way people view problems of sustainability in any particularly meaningful way so much as make them more aware of the magnitude of the problem and perhaps make them more active in pursuing solutions.
8. Towards the end of the film it begins to discuss options for combating the problems. It makes all the usual suggestions of reducing energy usage, using more efficient appliances and the like, driving less, generally consuming less, and creating a united public will. There was nothing particularly new or interesting, but then this film was more meant to get people riled up on the issue than actually do much about it, or so it seemed.
9. This film would have to be largely redone to make it educationally useful. As it stands it has little academic value due to a lack of depth of arguments and the subsequent supporting evidence. To make it educationally viable, this would have to be addressed as well as the problems discussed above.